Recent reasoning methods (e.g., chain-of-thought, entailment reasoning) help users understand how language models (LMs) answer a single question, but they do little to reveal the LM's overall understanding, or "theory," about the question's topic, making it still hard to trust the model. Our goal is to materialize such theories - here called microtheories (a linguistic analog of logical microtheories) - as a set of sentences encapsulating an LM's core knowledge about a topic. These statements systematically work together to entail answers to a set of questions to both engender trust and improve performance. Our approach is to first populate a knowledge store with (model-generated) sentences that entail answers to training questions and then distill those down to a core microtheory that is concise, general, and non-redundant. We show that, when added to a general corpus (e.g., Wikipedia), microtheories can supply critical, topical information not necessarily present in the corpus, improving both a model's ability to ground its answers to verifiable knowledge (i.e., show how answers are systematically entailed by documents in the corpus, fully grounding up to +8% more answers), and the accuracy of those grounded answers (up to +8% absolute). We also show that, in a human evaluation in the medical domain, our distilled microtheories contain a significantly higher concentration of topically critical facts than the non-distilled knowledge store. Finally, we show we can quantify the coverage of a microtheory for a topic (characterized by a dataset) using a notion of $p$-relevance. Together, these suggest that microtheories are an efficient distillation of an LM's topic-relevant knowledge, that they can usefully augment existing corpora, and can provide both performance gains and an interpretable, verifiable window into the model's knowledge of a topic.

Hallucinations -- the generation of untrue claims -- pose a challenge to the application of large language models (LLMs) [1] thereby motivating the development of metrics to evaluate factual precision. We observe that popular metrics using the Decompose-Then-Verify framework, such as FActScore [2], can be manipulated by adding obvious or repetitive claims to artificially inflate scores. We expand the FActScore dataset to design and analyze factual precision metrics, demonstrating that models can be trained to achieve high scores under existing metrics through exploiting the issues we identify. This motivates our new customizable plug-and-play subclaim selection component called Core, which filters down individual subclaims according to their uniqueness and informativeness. Metrics augmented by Core are substantially more robust as shown in head-to-head comparisons. We release an evaluation framework supporting the modular use of Core (https://github.com/zipJiang/Core) and various decomposition strategies, and we suggest its adoption by the LLM community. [1] Hong et al., "The Hallucinations Leaderboard -- An Open Effort to Measure Hallucinations in Large Language Models", arXiv:2404.05904v2 [cs.CL]. [2] Min et al., "FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generation", arXiv:2305.14251v2 [cs.CL].

Program synthesis with language models (LMs) has unlocked a large set of reasoning abilities; code-tuned LMs have proven adept at generating programs that solve a wide variety of algorithmic symbolic manipulation tasks (e.g. word concatenation). However, not all reasoning tasks are easily expressible as code, e.g. tasks involving commonsense reasoning, moral decision-making, and sarcasm understanding. Our goal is to extend an LM's program synthesis skills to such tasks and evaluate the results via pseudo-programs, namely Python programs where some leaf function calls are left undefined. To that end, we propose, Code Generation and Emulated EXecution (CoGEX). CoGEX works by (1) training LMs to generate their own pseudo-programs, (2) teaching them to emulate their generated program's execution, including those leaf functions, allowing the LM's knowledge to fill in the execution gaps; and (3) using them to search over many programs to find an optimal one. To adapt the CoGEX model to a new task, we introduce a method for performing program search to find a single program whose pseudo-execution yields optimal performance when applied to all the instances of a given dataset. We show that our approach yields large improvements compared to standard in-context learning approaches on a battery of tasks, both algorithmic and soft reasoning. This result thus demonstrates that code synthesis can be applied to a much broader class of problems than previously considered. Our released dataset, fine-tuned models, and implementation can be found at \url{https://github.com/nweir127/CoGEX}.

Can LLMs continually improve their previous outputs for better results? An affirmative answer would require LLMs to be better at discriminating among previously-generated alternatives, than generating initial responses. We explore the validity of this hypothesis in practice. We first introduce a unified framework that allows us to compare the generative and discriminative capability of any model on any task. Then, in our resulting experimental analysis of several LLMs, we do not observe the performance of those models on discrimination to be reliably better than generation. We hope these findings inform the growing literature on self-improvement AI systems.

It is challenging to perform question-answering over complex, multimodal content such as television clips. This is in part because current video-language models rely on single-modality reasoning, have lowered performance on long inputs, and lack interpetability. We propose TV-TREES, the first multimodal entailment tree generator. TV-TREES serves as an approach to video understanding that promotes interpretable joint-modality reasoning by producing trees of entailment relationships between simple premises directly entailed by the videos and higher-level conclusions. We then introduce the task of multimodal entailment tree generation to evaluate the reasoning quality of such methods. Our method's experimental results on the challenging TVQA dataset demonstrate intepretable, state-of-the-art zero-shot performance on full video clips, illustrating a best-of-both-worlds contrast to black-box methods.

Contemporary language models enable new opportunities for structured reasoning with text, such as the construction and evaluation of intuitive, proof-like textual entailment trees without relying on brittle formal logic. However, progress in this direction has been hampered by a long-standing lack of a clear protocol for determining what valid compositional entailment is. This absence causes noisy datasets and limited performance gains by modern neuro-symbolic engines. To address these problems, we formulate a consistent and theoretically grounded approach to annotating decompositional entailment datasets, and evaluate its impact on LLM-based textual inference. We find that our resulting dataset, RDTE (Recognizing Decompositional Textual Entailment), has a substantially higher internal consistency (+9%) than prior decompositional entailment datasets, suggesting that RDTE is a significant step forward in the long-standing problem of forming a clear protocol for discerning entailment. We also find that training an RDTE-oriented entailment classifier via knowledge distillation and employing it in a modern neuro-symbolic reasoning engine significantly improves results (both accuracy and proof quality) over other entailment classifier baselines, illustrating the practical benefit of this advance for textual inference.

Statutory reasoning refers to the application of legislative provisions to a series of case facts described in natural language. We re-frame statutory reasoning as an analogy task, where each instance of the analogy task involves a combination of two instances of statutory reasoning. This increases the dataset size by two orders of magnitude, and introduces an element of interpretability. We show that this task is roughly as difficult to Natural Language Processing models as the original task. Finally, we come back to statutory reasoning, solving it with a combination of a retrieval mechanism and analogy models, and showing some progress on prior comparable work.

Our goal is a modern approach to answering questions via systematic reasoning where answers are supported by human interpretable proof trees grounded in an NL corpus of authoritative facts. Such a system would help alleviate the challenges of interpretability and hallucination with modern LMs, and the lack of grounding of current explanation methods (e.g., Chain-of-Thought). This paper proposes a new take on Prolog-based inference engines, where we replace handcrafted rules with a combination of neural language modeling, guided generation, and semiparametric dense retrieval. Our implementation, NELLIE, is the first system to demonstrate fully interpretable, end-to-end grounded QA as entailment tree proof search, going beyond earlier work explaining known-to-be-true facts from text. In experiments, NELLIE outperforms a similar-sized state-of-the-art reasoner [Tafjord et al., 2022] while producing knowledge-grounded explanations. We also find NELLIE can exploit both semi-structured and NL text corpora to guide reasoning. Together these suggest a new way to jointly reap the benefits of both modern neural methods and traditional symbolic reasoning.

Large Language Models (LLMs) may hallucinate and generate fake information, despite pre-training on factual data. Inspired by the journalistic device of "according to sources", we propose according-to prompting: directing LLMs to ground responses against previously observed text. To quantify this grounding, we propose a novel evaluation metric (QUIP-Score) that measures the extent to which model-produced answers are directly found in underlying text corpora. We illustrate with experiments on Wikipedia that these prompts improve grounding under our metrics, with the additional benefit of often improving end-task performance. Furthermore, prompts that ask the model to decrease grounding (or to ground to other corpora) decrease grounding, indicating the ability of language models to increase or decrease grounded generations on request.

Recent work in open-domain question answering (ODQA) has shown that adversarial poisoning of the search collection can cause large drops in accuracy for production systems. However, little to no work has proposed methods to defend against these attacks. To do so, we rely on the intuition that redundant information often exists in large corpora. To find it, we introduce a method that uses query augmentation to search for a diverse set of passages that could answer the original question but are less likely to have been poisoned. We integrate these new passages into the model through the design of a novel confidence method, comparing the predicted answer to its appearance in the retrieved contexts (what we call \textit{Confidence from Answer Redundancy}, i.e. CAR). Together these methods allow for a simple but effective way to defend against poisoning attacks that provides gains of nearly 20\% exact match across varying levels of data poisoning/knowledge conflicts.